Why am I not a liberal?

Great Debates
61

Have you called me ‘stupid?’ No. But you’ve said I’m a liberal and that liberals are mostly dangerously fanatical demagogues who hate dissent and are afraid of your opinions. And so on. I’m obviously not talking crazy since a number of people agree with my comments on the tone you took, and have continued to take. At this point I’m beginning to think you’re doing it on purpose and I’m being a moron for explaining it to you over and over and trying to be patient.

Whatever, I don’t give a shit about what you think of me anymore. You started this thread making it clear what you thought about liberals and then decided they lived up to your preconceived notions. It’s infuriating, but I can’t argue about it and I’ve wasted too much time trying to do so. In my last post in this thread, I noted that I disagreed with Liberal on several important issues but still said he had made an excellent post. If that’s not a refutation of “automatically tak[ing] a negative view towards anyone who holds different views,” I don’t know what is.

“A little” my ass. Please don’t ask me why again. There have been plenty of posts explaining it in depth.

If you can find a cite where Al Franken and Michael Moore say this, I offer my congratulations.

That’s your interpretation of their opinions, and it’s one I disagree with.

:confused: Where’s that come from?

I don’t believe you.

You’re either lying or not paying attention to your own words.
From your first post: “Is there something threatening about them?”
From post 16: “why is the question “why are liberals so threatened by someone who holds beliefs similar to theirs but not identical” not valid? Why are you unwilling to answer it?”

I can’t disprove your opinions, your interpretations, and your biases anymore than you can disprove mine. I’d be a fool to try.

[quote[Okay, how’s this question: “why is it that whenever someone posts in a thread expressing a non-liberal opinion, there is an immediate dogpile from liberal posters characterizing the first poster as a stereotypical right-wing conservative? Doesn’t this seem to indicate a high level of intolerance among liberals? And since liberals claim to be tolerant, doesn’t the lack of tolerance that they display on a regular basis seem to indicate a degree of hypocracy?”[/quote]

Pal, when you ask questions like this, not only will you not get a straight answer, you don’t deserve one. These questions are in exactly the same tone that I and a number of other posters had a problem with because they’re so accusatory. Do you actually expect people who you call intolerant and hypocrites will give you the time of day?

62

BTW, Sam Stone is an example on these boards of someone who I believe describes himself as having libertarian tendencies but in fact seems to be very reliably on the conservative side on economics issues while hardly reliably being on the civil libertarian side of issues. (In fact, I am always amazed at how he can come down on the anti-civil-libertarian side of issues that I think ought to be practically no-brainers for anyone with a civil-libertarian bone in their body.) And, he’ll always support the Republicans over the Democrats despite the total capture of the Republican Party by the religious right.

63

I am sure many of those are classic liberals, which are practically the same as conservatives. You see, Liberalism has a rich and wonderful history, with diverse and divergent views. But at its root, the word “liberal” shares the same etymology as the word “liberty”. Liber -> freedom. Since the poll didn’t say if the respondents were using the “classic” or “parochial” definition, we must assume that some were classic liberals such as yourself.

64

By the way, Liberal, my clarification was not intended as an insult. I don’t think you took it that way, but something about this thread is making me feel I should take extra pains to be clear. :rolleyes:

I’ve disagreed sharply with any number of people and I’ve mixed it up with some, there’s no question about that. But I don’t hate people for disagreeing with me and I’m not automatically hostile to opposing views. (Using a hostile tone, on the other hand, usually gets me going.) I know some ‘pro-life’ liberals, so I don’t automatically assume people are Republicans if they differ from me on even one single issue. If people like that are actually out there, then they wouldn’t think I’m a liberal, which you do. I might say somebody holds a conservative position on a particular issue or set of issues, which is different, and be critical of that. I don’t know where you got the idea that I, or anybody, criticize people for not being liberal. I think that sounds more like me. I argue with opinions I disagree with, not because I’m such a straight party-line guy. There’s no question I lean left on most of the issues. But I’ve always tried to avoid knee-jerk-ism and being intolerant. I take that stuff very seriously.
I’m very proud of my posting record here, Max Castle, and I don’t think the things you’re saying about me have even the slightest basis in fact. If they do, show me I’m wrong. Go ahead. I did notice that you already passed up one opportunity to do that. I’m not going to go through all my posts, although I did check briefly and was unable to find a thread where I talked to you before now. I will say that if the things you’re saying about me are true, then you’re the first to say so.

65

I make no pretense of being an expert on you. I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t an active poster nor that you can’t admit any mistakes. I was just offering my opinion of some of your posts here on libertarianism. It seems to me that, when discussing that topic so dear to you: freedom, your logic, as Spock would say, is uncertain.

Thank you for the clarification. I will try to remember but if it really matters to you which pronouns people use I suggest you note your gender in your public profile. Almost none of the posters here do and I have grown weary of playing guessing games or using awkward formulations such as his/her. Instead I have decided if I am uncertain and the poster doesn’t identify themselves I will use the female pronoun as my default.

I’m not sure what you consider reading GD much. I visit the forum several times a day but never read the whole thing. The SDMB has a helpful policy of requiring descriptive thread titles so I only open the ones that sound interesting to me. At a guess I would say I typically read about one out of every five or six threads.

Whether or not I read a lot of GD there is no doubt I rarely read Pit threads. That includes your 2nd link. I didn’t read it because I don’t care if you went into the Pit and got burned. What did you expect? If you don’t want to get flamed then don’t post in the Pit. I don’t.

As for the first link, is that the best you can come up with? Excalibre didn’t jump to any conclusions about you. When people use the phrases like “you don’t appear” and “It really sounds like” that indicates they are giving an impression rather than stating a fact. Making tenative assumptions about people is hardly painting them as anything. And her assumption was merely that you were misinformed. She never attacked you for expressing non-liberal opinions or characterized you as a right-wing conservative without a shread of evidence besides the expression of a single non-liberal viewpoint. Do you have any example at all of any liberal here in GD doing so?

You seem to be misinformed. Even a simple dictionary definition can tell you this is not so. See Merriam-Webster Online:
“c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”

Liberals believe people are basically good but we aren’t complete idealists. We realize that everyone can’t live up to the ideal all the time and that is why government is needed to regulate our society.

66

Someone at Merriam-Webster (I mean the person who wrote the “definition” of a liberal) opines that a liberal believes in ‘the essential goodness of the human race’. This is not a position that is as opposed to that expressed by the poster who wrote that ‘liberals believe people to be inherently evil’ as might at first appear to be the case.

For what is a liberal to make of a group of people (usually large, often indeed a minority) who disagree with them - whether on this point or on others? What it usually boils down to is that those holding a different viewpoint are stupid or ignorant. Thus, Stephen Dawkins describes those who disagree with his views in just this manner. Indeed, Dawkins is a lot more honest than most of a liberal bent (perhaps he takes ‘goodness’ more seriously – who knows?), and so he adds that some of those who don’t share his views are ‘wicked’ - thus appearing to both endorse his liberal credentials (honesty = goodness) and scupper them (accusing people he’s never met without hearing their side of the story) at the same time. No wonder he sells so many books – he covers every base.

The so-called humanitarian approach to people’s belief systems shares the same problem that all humanitarian approaches tend towards when educated people (however well intentioned) stop looking at other people as equals but instead start looking at them as people in need of re-education or even of cure. Those who advocate human rights must always be on guard against an attitude that looks upon those with whom they disagree as not people with rights but rather as objects or cases.

67

I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying conservatives are different in this regard?

68

Who is Stephen Dawkins? What has he to do with anything and, assuming it is relevant, where and in what context does he say that "that some of those who don’t share his views are ‘wicked’ "? I googled +“Stephen Dawkins” +“wicked” and only turned up one page:

I had trouble following the rest of your post but it seems that at least part of it is saying that highly educated liberals sometimes look down on those who aren’t. I have no trouble believing that is true. No one is claiming liberals are perfect. We aren’t idealists and we aren’t angels either.

69

He means Richard Dawkins. Whether any of what he says is accurate I don’t know.
I’m confused by all the projection going on here. All liberals have to agree with Al Franken, Michael Moore and Richard Dawkins now? This seems like a Pit thread disguised as an attempt at conversation.

70

So sorry, I was confusing Stephen Hawking with Richard Dawkins.

Here’s what he said (plus his later explanation of it).

71

My first thought was, who the fuck is Richard Dawkins? But he at least did show up on a Google search. Here is the quote:

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

I see nothing wrong with that statement. He has succinctly categorized those who would deny reality. What he means by “wicked” is that some creationists might be deliberately lying but is polite enough to offer the possibility in an oblique manner. What has this to do with the discussion at hand? He isn’t talking about philosophical differences. This is a matter of fact.

72

Perhaps this should go to the Pit.

73

There’s nothing wrong with a little cursing now and again, for fuck’s sake. :wink: :wink:

I do agree 2sense’s post, though. Dawkins is a little harsh there, but provided you do think evolution is real, he’s right. He means ignorant in the non-pejorative sense we sometimes use it on the SDMB instead of as a euphemism for ‘stupid.’ Even without his explanation, it’s clear he isn’t calling creationists (and their ilk) wicked for disagreeing with him.

74

Marley23, enjoy. It was more mhendo than you, but you couldn’t resist the oportunity to join in the dogpile.

Some more responses:

Perhaps I should relate the incident that prompted this little outburst. I received a call from a representative of the Democratic party (as a non-partisian voter in a heavily Democratic district I get a lot of solicitations of this sort). He asked me if I supported “our” candidates, Kerry and Edwards. I told him I was still undecided. He proceeded to berate me until I hung up. Somehow I doubt that I would be at home in the same party as people who claim to be noble and enlightened but then engage in such juvenile tactics.

Yeah, those two are idiots. That’s why many conservatives try to distance them selves from them. Unlike Moore or Franklin, whom many liberals will defend to the death, even after their obfustications are pointed out.

Actually, I dropped that tone after my ill-advised OP and initial follow up, you are the one who keeps harping on it.

Well, now you have some idea what it’s like to be a non-liberal in a forum that is dominated by liberals.

Try reading the thread. My point was that that is NOT an accurate definition of liberalism.

75

Wow, I didn’t realize it, but I’m a liberal!

Maybe it’s just that those who call themselves liberals today… AREN’T!
(Clue: Maybe they’re Fascists?)

76

Extremely.

AND easily led, easily deceived.

Remember nazi germany.

Remember Chappaquidick.

77

Like we said.

“And the difference is???”

Stepped in your own shit again, didn’t you?

78

Could you define dogpiling please? It sounds like you’re making it an offense to be one of a number of people disagreeing with someone, in which case I guess I’m dogpiling you again. :rolleyes: The OP of that thread is extremely silly and not very coherent. My posts in that thread are pretty civil. Please note what I said to John Mace in my third post:

“I understand what you’re saying, John Mace, and you’re not wrong. But there’s something jarring about having a US Presidential candidate say that. And furthermore, he wasn’t talking about social contract-style limitations to our freedom to attack each other or something like that (AHunter3 deals with that). He was complaining about constitutionally protected speech because he disapproved of the way someone was using it.”

What a vicious attack, eh? Later, I say such bitingly partisan things as “My complaint was that Fleischer made a ridiculous comment, which he did, not that he ruined Bill Maher’s career, which he didn’t,” and (of WWII internment camps “Yes, and that was wrong. […] If we were discussing the internment camps, I’d be criticizing that. I wasn’t even criticizing Republicans in general, I was talking about Bush’s people.”

You didn’t drop that tone at all, and the second quote is not from your OP.

Oh please. There are plenty of non-liberals here. If it’s such a pain, why be a glutton for punishment?

I notice that in that thread you made the same claims about my “vast, sweeping statements damning all conservatives.” I think your problem is that you can’t tell the difference between such statements and me disagreeing with you, in which case my advice is this: get over yourself. In fact throughout that thread it looks like you’re having the same argument with mhendo that you’ve started with me.

Aw, you say that to all the liberals. :smiley: So you obviously came to this conclusion a while ago, because this isn’t very much different from your OP or several of your posts here. What did you want to debate here?

If my last analogy wasn’t good, let me try one more.

Q: Why are you such a jerk?
Answer in fantasy land: Well, my father was a poor role model, I have difficulty expressing myself and I get frustrated, and I have some anger issues.
Answer in real life: I’m not a jerk, go to hell.

In that thread, I said a couple of nasty thing about the Bush administration (and I even moderated those). The comments were in a very specific context, as well: I disliked Ari Fleischer’s comments about Bill Maher and I found Bush’s comment about limits to freedom a little troubling. Not fraught with omens that we were about to become a fascist dicatorship, just troubling. I said nothing about Republicans or you being evil people. If you weren’t sure what I meant, you could have read the sentence where I explicitly said so. Let me print it again:

79

But the people and positions that are representing themselves as “Liberals” (with a capital “L”) these days are obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers.

Cite? Check out this thread for starters.

I believe that people need government control, but that control must be equally applied. I believe that every chilc should have the same opportunity for advancement as any other child. I believe government should protect people from their own stupidity when necessary but shouldn’t second-guess them.

I believe in government for, by and of the people.

I believe that being liberal means you **don’t ** have to resort to lies to convince others (a la Michael Moore). I believe being liberal means being human, and accepting your faults (not like Kerry or Bush).

Ah, F it. Nobody’s listening, and it don’t mean nothing anyway.

Dream on.

80

Mmm…

I think Dawkins might not have written it today the way he did in the 80s. Not just because it would have saved him a lot of explaining (argument to self-interest), but because it does rather smack of intolerance.

‘Non-pejorative’ use of ‘ignorant’. I must remember that line next time I take someone down a peg or two!

Regarding ‘wicked’, I think he was speaking at least as much to people’s moral stance/philosophies as to their grasp of the ‘facts’ of evolution. That this is the case is evident to em from his use of ‘claim’. His point is that people - for whatever reason - attempt to persuade others (or perhaps themselves) of an approach that they know to be false. I believe this is as much a moral as an academic criticism.

Having said all that, I’d be the last to dismiss the credentials of an Oxford man out of hand!